P Magosch1,2,3, P Habermeyer4, S Lichtenberg5, M Tauber4,6, F Gohlke7, F Mauch8, D Boehm9, M Loew5, F Zeifang10, W Pötzl11. 1. Deutsches Gelenkzentrum Heidelberg, ATOS Klinik Heidelberg, Bismarckstraße 9‑15, 69115, Heidelberg, Deutschland. petra.magosch@atos.de. 2. Deutsches Schulterzentrum, ATOS Klinik München, Effnerstraße 38, 81925, München, Deutschland. petra.magosch@atos.de. 3. Orthopädisch-Unfallchirurgisches Zentrum, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Universität Heidelberg, Mannheim, Deutschland. petra.magosch@atos.de. 4. Deutsches Schulterzentrum, ATOS Klinik München, Effnerstraße 38, 81925, München, Deutschland. 5. Deutsches Gelenkzentrum Heidelberg, ATOS Klinik Heidelberg, Bismarckstraße 9‑15, 69115, Heidelberg, Deutschland. 6. Universitätsklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Paracelsus Medizinische Universität, Salzburg, Österreich. 7. Klinik für Schulterchirurgie, Rhön Klinikum, Campus Bad Neustadt, Salzburger Leite 1, 97616, Bad Neustadt a. d. Saale, Deutschland. 8. Department Sportorthopädie, Sporttraumatologie, Obere Extremität, Schulterprothetik, Kernspintomographie, Sportklinik Stuttgart, Taubenheimstraße 8, 70372, Stuttgart, Deutschland. 9. Ortho Mainfranken, Bismarckstraße 16, 97080, Würzburg, Deutschland. 10. Sektion Schulter- und Ellenbogenchirurgie, Klinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Schlierbacher Landstraße 200a, 69118, Heidelberg, Deutschland. 11. Schulter- und Ellenbogenchirurgie, Vulpius Klinik GmbH, Vulpiusstraße 29, 74906, Bad Rappenau, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anatomic shoulder arthroplasty in osteoarthritis with biconcave glenoid wear results in decreased functional results and a higher rate of early glenoid loosening. AIM: The aim of the data analysis of the German shoulder arthroplasty register was to clarify whether reverse shoulder arthroplasty can provide better functional results and a lower complication rate than anatomic arthroplasty in osteoarthritis with biconcave glenoid wear. METHODS: The analysis included 1052 completely documented primary implanted arthroplasties with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. In 119 cases, a B2-type glenoid was present. Out of these cases, 86 were treated with an anatomic shoulder arthroplasty, and in 33 cases a reverse shoulder arthroplasty was implanted. The mean follow-up was 47.6 months. RESULTS: The Constant score with its subcategories, as well as the active range of movement improved significantly after anatomic and after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. DISCUSSION: We observed no difference in functional results between both types of arthroplasty; however, reverse arthroplasty showed a significant higher revision rate (21.2%) (3% glenoid loosening, 6% prosthetic instability) than anatomic shoulder arthroplasty (12.8%) (11.6% glenoid loosening, 1.2% prosthetic instability), whereas anatomic shoulder arthroplasty showed a higher rate of glenoid loosening. Functional and radiographic results of both types of arthroplasty are comparable with the results reported in the literature, although our analysis represents results from an implant registry (data pertaining to medical care quality).
BACKGROUND: Anatomic shoulder arthroplasty in osteoarthritis with biconcave glenoid wear results in decreased functional results and a higher rate of early glenoid loosening. AIM: The aim of the data analysis of the German shoulder arthroplasty register was to clarify whether reverse shoulder arthroplasty can provide better functional results and a lower complication rate than anatomic arthroplasty in osteoarthritis with biconcave glenoid wear. METHODS: The analysis included 1052 completely documented primary implanted arthroplasties with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. In 119 cases, a B2-type glenoid was present. Out of these cases, 86 were treated with an anatomic shoulder arthroplasty, and in 33 cases a reverse shoulder arthroplasty was implanted. The mean follow-up was 47.6 months. RESULTS: The Constant score with its subcategories, as well as the active range of movement improved significantly after anatomic and after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. DISCUSSION: We observed no difference in functional results between both types of arthroplasty; however, reverse arthroplasty showed a significant higher revision rate (21.2%) (3% glenoid loosening, 6% prosthetic instability) than anatomic shoulder arthroplasty (12.8%) (11.6% glenoid loosening, 1.2% prosthetic instability), whereas anatomic shoulder arthroplasty showed a higher rate of glenoid loosening. Functional and radiographic results of both types of arthroplasty are comparable with the results reported in the literature, although our analysis represents results from an implant registry (data pertaining to medical care quality).
Entities:
Keywords:
Humerus; Osteoarthrosis; Scapula; Shoulder arthroplasty; Total joint replacement
Authors: D Müller; M Augustin; N Banik; W Baumann; K Bestehorn; J Kieschke; R Lefering; B Maier; S Mathis; S J Rustenbach; S Sauerland; S C Semler; J Stausberg; H Sturm; C Unger; E A M Neugebauer Journal: Gesundheitswesen Date: 2010-09-24
Authors: Paul C Chin; Michael E Hachadorian; Pamela A Pulido; Michelle L Munro; Gokhan Meric; Heinz R Hoenecke Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Bryan Wall; Laurent Nové-Josserand; Daniel P O'Connor; T Bradley Edwards; Gilles Walch Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Mikaël Chelli; Lucas Lo Cunsolo; Marc-Olivier Gauci; Jean-François Gonzalez; Peter Domos; Nicolas Bronsard; Pascal Boileau Journal: JSES Open Access Date: 2019-09-11